Is Ron Paul Right on Israel?

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Ben Swann: The latest poll out of Iowa shows the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul are tied for first place. Mitt Romney is now a clear third. And while the media is still not covering Congressman Paul fairly, the Republican establishment seems to run from the man. One of the most commonly stated reasons is that many on the right say they are uncomfortable with what they call Congressman Paul’s clear anti-Israel stance. But is Ron Paul really anti-Israel? Tonight, the facts and reality check you won’t see anywhere else.

So how real is the concern over Congressman Ron Paul’s position on Israel? Real enough that the Republican Jewish coalition last week told the congressman that he was not invited to speak at a candidates’ forum, even though every other Republican candidate was invited. The same group also banned the congressman from speaking in 2007 as well. Now let me just say that a private organization, The Republican Jewish Coalition, doesn’t have to invite anyone. But what reason did the RJC give for excluding Paul? Well, they cited his “Misguided and extreme views “on Israel. Tonight, we’re going to take a look at three of those views. Now there is plenty on the internet about Ron Paul’s beliefs, but most of that has been debunked. Instead of using conjecture, tonight I’m looking at actual statements the Congressman has made. Let’s begin with the criticism of, “It’s all Israel’s fault”, the idea that Ron Paul blames Israel for terror waged against it. Here’s a video clip that reportedly proves it.

Ron Paul: Hamas was encouraged and really started by Israel, because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasser Arafat. You say, “Yea, that was better then and served his purpose, but we didn’t want Hamas to do this”. So then, we as Americans say, “Well, we have such a good system, we’re going to impose this on the world, we’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections”. So we encourage the Palestinians to have a free election, they do, and they elect Hamas.

Ben Swann: The author of the blog where this was posted says that this is proof that the Congressman Paul is anti-Israel. After all, he blames Israel for attacks from Hamas, he blames the United States for Hamas. But what does the Congressman say? He says, “blowback”, the military and intelligence term for consequence of foreign policy and interventions, is something the United States doesn’t want to deal with, and yet is very real. But let’s go further. Is he factually correct of what he said about Hamas? Yes. According to Avner, who worked for the Israeli government in religious affairs in Gaza for decades, it was 30 years ago when Israel tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged Hamas as a counterweight to the secular nationalist of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the PLO. So it would be incorrect to say that Congressman Paul is blaming Israel for bombings by Hamas. Rather, his position appears to be warning about the consequence of blowback in both, American and Israeli foreign policy.

Which brings us to the second issue. “Clearly, Ron Paul is anti-Israel”, detractors say, “After all, he wants to deny Israel foreign aid”.

Ron Paul: To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country, and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And it becomes weapons of war, essentially, no matter how well motivated it is.

Host: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel?

Ron Paul: I would cut all foreign aid, I would treat everybody equally and fairly.

Ben Swann: Well, despite the headlines, is that an anti-Israel stance? It is an anti-foreign aid stance, combined with consistency in foreign policy. Okay, but Israel has had a special relationship with the United States for many years. Shouldn’t an exception be made, isn’t Congressman Paul turning his back on this nation that needs the United States?

Ron Paul: I’m the one that defends the sovereignty of Israel, I don’t want Israel to be beholding to us. And even Netanyahu this year before the U.S. Congress said, “We don’t need American troops to defend us, we can take care of ourselves”. So I’m just sort of talking in a language that some people in this country don’t want to hear, and yet, there’s a full discussion of these views in Israel itself.

Ben Swann: Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic recently wrote that Ron Paul’s position is actually the closest to a Zionist, of all the Republican candidates. He says because, “In one sense, a true Zionist is a believer in two core values of the Jewish Liberation Movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance”. So here’s what you need to know, is Ron Paul anti-Israel? Well, consider history. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant. Texas Congressman Ron Paul went against both, the UN and President Ronald Reagan, when he defended Israel’s right to defend itself. Today, that position hasn’t changed. Paul seems to believe that the strongest stance with Israel is for the United States to no longer try to control that nation’s every move.

Let me end with a question. If today, Israel decided that it must launch an attack on Iran to protect its own people, which Republican candidate, aside from Ron Paul, would support that move without Israel, who is a sovereign nation, forced to receive any U.S. approval? And that is reality check.

I have no doubt you have thoughts on this story. If you’d like to make your voice heard, you can do so right now, get in on the conversation. Just search Facebook.com for “Ben Swann Reality Check“. We’re going to post a story on there, I’d love to hear your comments, even follow up of a couple of Reality Checks next week.

33 Comments:

...Zionist political violence refers to acts of violence committed by Zionists in the British Mandate of Palestine for political reasons, mainly to advance the creation of Israel, a Jewish state.

Actions were carried out by individuals and Jewish paramilitary groups such as the Irgun, the Lehi, the Haganah and the Palmach as part of a conflict between Zionists, British authorities, and resident Arabs, regarding land, immigration, and Jewish national aspirations.[1]

British soldiers and officials, United Nations personnel, Palestinian Arab fighters and civilians, and Jewish fighters and civilians were targets or victims of these actions. Domestic, commercial, and government property, infrastructure, and material were also attacked.

...Saudi Arabia's mufti, the highest religious authority in the conservative Muslim state, has banned the popular children's play of Pokemon, saying it promotes Zionism and involves gambling....

...The game has been criticised in several countries, with a Christian church in Mexico calling it "demonic", and organisations in Slovakia saying television shows based on the game were detrimental to children. ...

I suspect that if Israel lost its US subsidies, then it would die a natural death.

Israel is a state that grew out of terrorism (zionist terrorist were responsible for the death of nearly 1000 British soldiers) and has been a source of trouble ever since. Perhaps its time to pull the plug on this thorn in the side of humanity?

The Congress is authorized to declare War and not the President. The real question is whether or not CONGRESS will declare War or not under the circumstances ironsights describes. As it stands we are fighting several Wars undeclared without any idea what defines victory and done in a poitical way and not in a way that our military can go in and get the job done and then come home. Moreover, there are numerous special interests that benefit from these wars and most Americans can't even tell why we are there. Israel can defend herself in most cases and War isn't something to go into lightly.

@Robert valdez Your response obfuscates the issue as the collective response of Congress is not in question here but rather Paul's individual position and potential response specifically. Paul can state that he supports Israel but to what extent? Does that mean he only supports the right of Israel to defend herself? OR does that also mean that he will also support US military intervention and assistance to Israel should such a need arise?

The undefined hypothetical scenario described is already obfuscated. Applying Constitutional powers to the Presidency that are SPCIFICALLY given to Congress is a further obfuscation of the issue. Defining what Israel "needs" when they are a soverign nation is like presuming the US president must know their needs better than Israel's citizens and govt. itself. The problem is with the question and all the presumptions that America is supposed to be involved at every level of multiple foreign govt. decisions. Are we supposd to be the USA or the Policeman of the World? And with all the handouts are we ultimately just answering to special interests or do we really believe the Isralis can't make decisions and make their own treaties better than Washington? We can't trust Washington to run healthcare or a car company and we suppose Washington can solve the Middle East's problems? If the Israelis need help, I'm sure they will ask and Congress can decide what to do, including targeting certain terrorists as has been done in the past US history when dealing with non-government threats.

gee never thought a simple and legitimate question on what a certain presidential candidate might do regarding the execution of his foreign policy paradigm in a given situation would be met by so much resistance and red herring argumentation

The US Constitution is distinctly different from an odd looking fish. When it comes to Ron Paul, it is always relevant. If more Americans would resist when the Constitution is ignored and/or disobeyed, then perhaps we would not lose thousands of our service men fighting undefined illegitamate wars. A question can be legitamate and simple, but still loaded with presumptions. By not addressing those presumptions any reader would assume those presumptions to be true. Just because it is usual and customary for Presidential candidates to ignore The Constitution, it does not make it right.

Let us then remove the "presumptions" if you will and also the straw man standing in our midst and propose a different framework which I hope will get to the heart of the matter and yield a straightforward answer. Although Congress has the power to officially declare war, the President as Commander In Chief is still relatively free to order a variety of military actions notwithstanding the absence of an official declaration of war from Congress. Given this, would Paul 1) take the initiative to go to Congress and seek Congressional approval for a declaration of war to assist Israel? 2) As Commander In Chief order various military activities short of declaring war? Or, 3) Stand down allowing Israel to wage war on her own?

I tend to feel it is next to impossible to predict what will happen next in the Middle East, so I do not know what scenario we are talking about but here are 2 sources of information and related quotes to your question:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/national-defense/

...as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

...He believes that U.S. military power should be used only as a last resort in order to protect core U.S. national interests and not as part of an ambitious and costly strategy to force other countries to follow American dictates and embrace American ideals. ...

I am sure you are listening to FOX and CNN and the is the problem you calling me that I sound like Yasir Arafat but that is fine too because as far as UN goes, they have for more resolution on Israel then on any country on earth -You may check UN site for that.

You've also mentioned two state solutions since 1948. I wonder why 48 why not before or after. Is it because of what happen in Germany to Jews? Why not any other location in the world? Why chose Palestine?

I am sure you are listening to FOX and CNN and the is the problem you calling me that I sound like Yasir Arafat but that is fine too because as far as UN goes, they have for more resolution on Israel then on any country on earth -You may check UN site for that.

You've also mentioned two state solutions since 1948. I wonder why 48 why not before or after. Is it because of what happen in Germany to Jews? Why not any other location in the world? Why chose Palestine?

Arabs and Islam are not synonymous, I agree that it is the dominating religion, but there are many Arab Jews, and Arab Christians in that region of the world, and they have always lived peacefully. Bethlehem, in fact, was the birth place of Christianity. This is by no means a religious issue! We "Arab/Muslims" are not taught to kill anyone, your ignorance is astounding. People are not dying over their religions they are dying over taken land and displacement and are rightfully defending themselves from modern globalization, funded by powerful countries. It is conveniently easy to blame Islam and sympathize with Israel because of the current fears of Islam, particularly used as propaganda by the Western Media to defend the current acts of interference (Iraq) by the U.S. After WWII Israel was almost planted in Somalia but a push from the U.S put them in the Middle East in order to plant allies in that part of the world. I guarantee you if that country was formed in Somalia there would be the same resistance to globalization and the issue would not be religious. Please get your facts straight!

Ok can't believe isreal is still an issue after so many years, like why bother giving them nukes if America still has to hold there hands. They have there big boy pants on. Even if Iran had a nuke, it's one nuke against 300 isreal nukes and 1000s of American nukes Iran would be ash if they tried something

What a bunch of Donks. You're all as retarded as this Mutt you blindly are in love with. Ron Paul is completely insane. Take a close look at him when he is ranting. If you can't see his mental retardation, that's because you're retarded too.

He's the only candidate amongst the Republicans who's primary interest is USA and its people - and not other countries unlike most of the other candidates who are talking of other countries and visiting them as soon as they (if they) are elected. I think Ron Paul is by far the only sensible and reasonable candidate who can turn things around for this country and get it out of the economic quagmire it is in today. A for the other GOP candidates, they are humorously entertaining to watch - and "fodder" for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert!

Cgrl seems to be missing the point. Ron Paul isn't going to MAKE jews and Arab/Muslims live happily side by side. However, they would be free to make agreements without special interests in the US dictating who wins and who loses, leaving the US hated and broke. Having a foriegn polcy tied to billions of dollars being handed out forever will ensure that the problems never end. As long as the US is giving away free money, we will be financing the special interests that thrive on war and conflict. it is the best interst of jews and muslims alike to work out thier own differences. US aid has not brought a stable peace in over 50 years. Americans don't understand Middle East politics and agendas, yet we pour billions into the region and we get blamed for everything that goes wrong. Perhaps it's time for the people on both sides of that conflict to spend their own money and hold their own leaders accountable.

1911 Brittanica entry on Zionism/Zionists - "Between 1897 and 1910 the Zionist organization held NINE INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES. At the first, which met at Basel, a political programme was adopted on the following terms: — “Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home IN PALESTINE." Yo, Gingrich, the EVER GUILTY ONE, just who are the invented people? The Zionists are the invented people, invented through STOLEN bank funds!! Get lost, you traitor!!

1911 Brittanica entry on Zionism/Zionists - "Between 1897 and 1910 the Zionist organization held nine international Congresses. At the first, which met at Basel, a political programme was adopted on the following terms: — “Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home IN PALESTINE." Yo, Gingrich, the EVER GUILTY ONE, just who are the invented people? The Zionists are the invented people, invented through STOLEN bank funds!! Get lost, your traitor!!

We seem to be on a course for war with Iran. Such a war would likely kill hundreds of thousands of Iranian if not millions. Do we really have to stay on this course? It seems that regardless of what the Iranians do, we can still kill them if they act badly. So do we need to make the war inevitable? Americans used to be angry at Japan for premtive war (first strike). Do we care who bombs who first anymore? Does all our military aid money help special interests in foriegn countries? Could we be creating a class of special interests that would benefit from war and not peace? What is US foriegn policy? Do we have any kind of strategy the American people can understand? Ron Paul's foriegn policy is understandable. The other candidates seem to only move us towards another war to kill thousands of our troops and hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Do we have to do this?

Israel needs a leader like Ron Paul to negotiate and start using their diplomat around their neighborhood rather than guns and artilleries. What makes it worse is that we continue to support them with more and more weapons and that is the number one reason Israel continues to use them carelessly against their neighbor and the cycle of violence never ends. They need to stop demolishing Palestinian home. They need to give Palestinian their right to retune to their land.

Do remember that the Jews themselves lived side by side with Muslim for a long time and they need to bring that back and it is possible and I can easily say this again if we can have a person like Ron Paul there.

Disclaimer

RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.